Efficacious alternative remedy precludes writ challenge; petition dismissed where admissions and corroborative evidence sustain tax adjudication.

Availability of an efficacious alternative statutory remedy under Section 107 precluded maintainability of the writ petition; the High Court applied the principle that writ jurisdiction is exceptional and not available where an effective appeal exists, and on merits found the departmental record - including recorded admissions and corroborative statements indicating clandestine arrangements, wilful misstatement and suppression of facts - sufficient to sustain adjudication for tax demand and penalty under the anti-evasion provisions and to justify continuation of proceedings; accordingly the writ was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition challenging the show-cause notice dated 28.01.2025 and the Order-in-Original dated 19.12.2025 is maintainable before the High Court notwithstanding the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and whether the impugned order is liable to be quashed on merits in view of the material on record including statements and investigation findings.

Analysis: The Court examined (a) the availability and efficacy of the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 as an alternative remedy to challenge an adjudication under Section 74 of the Act; (b) the factual and investigative record relied upon by the respondents, including the recorded statement dated 05.07.2024 and subsequent statements corroborating ownership and control of transport firms; and (c) the adjudicating authority's application of provisions concerning self-assessment under Section 59 and eligibility of input tax credit under Sections 16 and 17 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court noted that the petitioner was informed of the alternate remedy, elected to address merits before the Court citing inability to make pre-deposit, and that the departmental investigation unearthed admissions and corroborative statements indicating clandestine arrangements, wilful misstatement and suppression of facts, and findings by the adjudicating authority that gave rise to proposed demand and penalty under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Given these circumstances, the Court considered both the propriety of entertaining a writ in presence of an efficacious statutory appeal and the sufficiency of material justifying continuation of adjudicatory proceedings.

Conclusion: The writ petition is not maintainable in the face of the efficacious alternative statutory remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and, on the material on record including admissions and corroborative statements, the petitioner has not established grounds for quashing the impugned order; accordingly the writ petition is rejected and the challenge is dismissed (decision in favour of revenue).

---